Hacker News Reader

Comment by huntse | Hacker News Reader

That doesn't make your statement any less false. It might suit your metaphor for that to be the case, but facts are stubborn things dude. Pretty good rendering here http://www.greatmodernpictures.com/drawinggal15lg.jpg

What about this one? Look like someone making mistakes in introductory drawing class to you? http://www.art-wallpaper.com/4056/C%C3%A9zanne+Paul/Sketch+a...

How about this? Beginner rendering perhaps? http://amica.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/AMICO~1~1~3...

The problem is you can't quite bring yourself to admit that you picked a really bad example. You wanted someone who's technical deficiencies were made up for by their conceptual skill, and you chose someone who could draft their ass off and also had an incredible ability to choose fantastic things to produce.

View on HN

The self portrait is a nice drawing, but not particularly accurate. Or do you really think his ear stuck out like that?

Remember, we're talking about rendering here. Do you really think the woman's upper arm was that long compared to her head?

I think he means things like this:

http://www.navigo.com/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/sl/cezanne.coin-...

The color is wonderful, the objects are wonderful, but they are hovering above the table and the fruit on the platter is painted like it's going to roll out. The perspective isn't right either.

Does anyone else feel uneasy if they see a painting with wrong perspective? It totally destroys the beauty for me.

You need to understand that this is entirely a subjective opinion. There are forms of art where accuracy is prized, but in any kind of modern art, any rule can be broken if the result is interesting.

Are you saying you like none of Picasso's later work? Or even Dalí's?

There is no way to judge art other than by subjective opinion.

> There are forms of art where accuracy is prized, but in any kind of modern art, any rule can be broken if the result is interesting. > Are you saying you like none of Picasso's later work? Or even Dalí's?

I do like Picasso's and Dali's work and also Cezanne's work. I even like the picture I linked to. But this is the key part:

> if the result is interesting.

I don't see how the wrong perspective and tilted platter add to the appeal of the painting. It seems to be an accident.

Fair enough.

Certainly for me, a tilted bowl of fruit that defies logic is more interesting than a boring bowl of fruit. It still doesn't fascinate me incredibly, but it at least adds something worth thinking about. I'm not that well-versed in painting, however, so perhaps somebody more enthusiastic than I can explain to both of us what makes Cezanne so awesome?

In fields I know something about (unlike art, which I don't), "interesting" and "well-done" are not very correlated.

So people who do good work are never interesting? Or people with fascinating ideas never learn to polish them? I'm confused.

First, I'm not talking about people, but about works. Second, I wasn't saying there was a reverse correlation, but not really any, in my experience. Exciting work (from the consumption standpoint) is not really any more or less likely to be well-done in a technical sense, as far as I've experienced.

Cezanne was not in competition with photography.

[Edit: pg had already made 'my' points about the first two drawings.]

The third is subpar even for a beginner rendering. Almost looks like some early attempt at cubism. In a bad way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com